Can a Tennessee county school system refuse to enroll students who live inside a separate municipal school district, or stop providing services to those students?

Plain-English summary

A 2006 Tennessee AG opinion (06-102) said counties did not have to enroll students who live inside a separate municipal school system, and that, "as a general rule," counties did not have to keep providing services to those students. This opinion supplements that 2006 conclusion. The general principle still holds, but there are now several categories of students a county school system cannot refuse, regardless of where the student lives. The opinion lists them:

• Homeless children and youths under the McKinney-Vento Act
• Students in foster care under § 49-6-3102(c)
• Children of active-duty military and reserve component families under the Interstate Compact and § 49-6-313
• Children of relocating service members under § 49-6-3101
• Children in temporary caregiver arrangements under the Power of Attorney for Care of a Minor Child Act
• Students incarcerated in detention centers under § 49-6-3023 and the related rules
• Transfer students seeking equal access to academic and arts programs under the Access and Opportunity Act, § 49-6-309(a)

The 2006 opinion is "withdrawn" to the extent it is inconsistent with these constraints.

What this means for you

If you serve on a local school board or are a superintendent

Treat the 2006 opinion's "as a general rule" framing as still partly accurate, but obsolete in detail. Your board retains discretion over routine inter-district enrollments. Your board does not have discretion over the seven categories above. Audit your current policies to make sure they include:

• A McKinney-Vento liaison and an immediate-enrollment process for disputed cases (42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(E) requires immediate enrollment pending resolution)
• A foster-care coordinator who keeps students in their pre-custody school where DCS determines that is in the student's best interest
• Procedures for accepting children of military families under the Interstate Compact
• A process for accepting hardship-based powers of attorney under § 34-6-302(a)(1) within their three permitted hardship categories
• An agreement (or default rule) for educational services to students at any detention center within your jurisdiction
• Equal-access guarantees for transfer students under § 49-6-309(a) once they enroll

Refusing to enroll a student in any of these categories on the ground that the student "lives in another district" exposes the LEA to federal compliance issues (under McKinney-Vento) and state-law claims.

If you are a parent of a homeless or foster-care student

You can require immediate enrollment. McKinney-Vento and § 49-6-3102 say so explicitly. If a school refuses, escalate to the McKinney-Vento liaison (every district has one) or the foster-care coordinator. The federal statute requires immediate enrollment pending appeal, so even a disputed enrollment must continue in the school of origin or the requested school until final resolution.

If you are a military family relocating to Tennessee

Section 49-6-3101 lets you enroll your dependent child in the destination district as soon as you can produce military orders showing relocation. The receiving district "shall allow" enrollment if you provide the orders and documentation. Reserve-component families get the same protection under § 49-6-313, added in 2023.

If you are a parent or guardian using a hardship power of attorney

Tennessee's Power of Attorney for Care of a Minor Child Act lists three specific hardships that trigger enrollment rights for the temporary caregiver: see § 34-6-302(a)(1). The local school system "is not required to enroll" if your power of attorney states a hardship outside those three. So if you are using a power of attorney for a non-listed reason, expect the district to ask for documentation and may decline.

If you are an attorney representing transfer students

The Access and Opportunity Act, § 49-6-309(a), is your strongest tool. Once a transfer student is enrolled in good academic standing, the receiving district must give "equal access" to all academic and arts programs, clubs, events, and opportunities. So a district that lets transfer students enroll but then locks them out of athletic teams, advanced courses, or arts programs is violating the statute. The opinion confirms that "the simple fact that a transfer student resides in a municipality" is not a sufficient basis for cutting off these opportunities.

Common questions

Q: Can a Tennessee county still refuse to enroll a student who lives in a separate city school district, just because of geography?
A: Generally yes, for routine cases. The 2006 opinion's general rule holds: a county is not required to enroll students who reside in a separate municipal system. But the seven exception categories above override that rule.

Q: Does the McKinney-Vento Act override Tennessee enrollment rules?
A: For homeless students, yes. Tennessee Code Ann. § 49-6-3102(b) explicitly subordinates local board discretion to "exceptions . . . provided in . . . the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act." A Tennessee school cannot refuse to enroll a homeless student even if the student lives within another district's boundaries.

Q: What counts as "homeless" under McKinney-Vento?
A: An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (42 U.S.C. § 11434a). The definition includes children sharing housing with others due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or similar reason ("doubled-up" situations), unsheltered children, and children in motels, shelters, or transitional housing.

Q: Who pays for transportation when a homeless student stays in their school of origin but moves to a different district?
A: McKinney-Vento requires the two affected districts to "agree upon a method to apportion the responsibility and costs." 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii)(II). If they cannot agree, costs are shared equally.

Q: What happens if a student in foster care is placed in a different county?
A: Under § 49-6-3102(c), the student remains enrolled in the same school they attended before entering custody, unless the Department of Children's Services determines a different placement is in the student's best interest. If DCS so determines, the student enrolls in the system serving the placement location or where the parent resides.

Q: Can a school district refuse to provide special education services to a transfer student?
A: No, not on the basis of residence. Federal law (IDEA) and the Tennessee equal-access statute both require the receiving district to provide appropriate services to enrolled students. The opinion does not address IDEA specifically, but the equal-access principle applies broadly.

Q: What about virtual or homebound students?
A: The opinion does not address virtual education specifically. The same enrollment rules apply, but the operational details (which district provides curriculum, which provides services) often turn on intergovernmental agreements.

Q: Does this opinion change the rules for charter schools?
A: Charter schools have their own enrollment rules under separate provisions. The opinion does not address charter-specific enrollment, but the McKinney-Vento and foster-care protections apply across all public schools, including public charters.

Background and statutory framework

Tennessee's school-enrollment regime starts from the principle that local school boards "manage and control" the schools in their jurisdiction. § 49-2-203(a)(2). The General Assembly has given local boards "the broadest discretion" over admission and transfer decisions, repeatedly using the permissive verb "may" in the relevant statutes (§§ 49-6-302(f), 49-6-403(e), 49-6-3001(b)(3), 49-6-3104(a), (d)).

That broad discretion is what the 2006 opinion described. Since 2006, however, the legislature has layered specific constraints on top:

• The 2006 amendments to § 49-6-3102(b) made McKinney-Vento explicit (2006 Pub. Acts, ch. 756).
• The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children was enacted in 2010 and codified at § 49-12-301.
• 2017 legislation (§ 49-6-3023) required educational services for detained youth.
• 2019 legislation (§ 49-6-3101) required enrollment of relocating military dependents.
• 2023 legislation (§ 49-6-313) extended Compact-style protections to reserve-component families.
• 2023 also brought the Access and Opportunity Act (§ 49-6-309), guaranteeing equal access for transfer students.

Each statute carves out a specific category of student whose enrollment cannot be denied based on residence alone. The 2025 opinion's value is consolidating that growing list.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3102 (Enrollment authority and McKinney-Vento incorporation)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3104 (Out-of-district admission and transfer)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-309 (Access and Opportunity Act equal-access)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-12-301 (Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children)
- 42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq. (McKinney-Vento Act)

Cases:
- City of Humboldt v. McKnight, 2005 WL 2051284 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), General Assembly's broad discretion over educational entities
- Martin v. Piserchia, 2024 WL 3812071 (D.N.J. 2024), McKinney-Vento school-of-origin presumption

Prior AG opinions:
- Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-102 (June 21, 2006): withdrawn to the extent inconsistent with this opinion

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2025/op25-008.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
March 7, 2025
Opinion No. 25-008
Issues Impacting a Public School System's Discretion Over the Enrollment and Education
of Students that Live Outside the District

Question
In Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-102 (June 21, 2006) ("the 2006 opinion"), the Office of the
Attorney General concluded that no state law requires a county school system to enroll students
who are residents of a municipality with a separate school system. The Office also concluded that,
"as a general rule," a county school system would not have to continue providing services for
students who are enrolled in municipal school systems. Is that opinion still valid?

Opinion
Op. 06-102 requires supplementation. Local public school systems generally retain
discretion over the enrollment of students that live outside of their districts. But in some
circumstances, a public school system cannot deny services to a student simply because the student
lives in an area served by another system.

ANALYSIS

In recognition of the "inherent value of education," our State Constitution provides that
"[t]he General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a
system of free public schools." Tenn. Const., art. XI, § 12. The General Assembly has determined
that "[t]here shall be a local public school system operated in each county or combination of
counties." Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-1-102(c). And in some regions, a local public school system
may be "operated in a municipality." Id.

In the 2006 opinion, this Office considered what types of responsibilities a county school
system might have when its operations are juxtaposed by the presence of a municipal school
system within the same county. Specifically, the Office addressed whether a county school system
may "decline to permit a county resident who is also a resident of a municipality to enroll in the
county school system or decline to continue to provide services to the student due to the simple
fact that they reside inside the municipality." Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-102 (June 21, 2006). We
opined that "[n]o state law requires a county school system to enroll students who are residents of
a municipality with a separate school system." Id. And we also stated that, "as a general rule, the
county would not have to continue to provide services for students who are enrolled in municipal
school systems." Id.

The basic thrust of what was communicated in the 2006 opinion still generally rings true.
As noted in the 2006 opinion, a local board of education manages and controls the schools in its
jurisdiction. Id.; see Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-2-203(a)(2). And pursuant to § 49-6-3104(a), "[l]ocal
boards of education may admit pupils from outside their respective local school systems." Tenn.
Code Ann. § 49-6-3104(a) (emphasis added). Additionally, they "may" "arrange for the transfer
of pupils residing within their systems to schools located outside their districts, and enter into
agreements with other local boards of education for the admission or transfer of pupils from one
. . . school system to another." Id.

This theme of local discretion over inter-district matters is reiterated in § 49-6-3104(d).
Although that provision provides that "an adult pupil or the parent or guardian of a minor pupil
may transfer the pupil to a school system outside the one serving the pupil's place of residence,"
the transfer is "at the discretion of the receiving board of education." Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-
3104(d) (emphasis added). Similarly, § 49-6-3001(b)(3) provides that a student who meets state
board of education requirements for transfer or admission purposes "may" be admitted by a local
board of education. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3001(b)(3). And in other specific contexts, statutory
provisions echo this general principle of local discretion. See, e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-302(f)
("Any county board of education may admit to the elementary schools pupils resident in another
county, as provided in § 49-6-3104."); Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-403(e) (noting that high school
pupils residing in one county "may" be admitted to the high schools of another county as provided
by § 49-6-3104); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3102(b) (noting that, subject to certain
exceptions, the authority of every school board "in the matter of enrollment of pupils within its
local school system shall be full and complete and its decision as to the enrollment of any pupil in
any such school shall be final").

Although bills introduced during the first regular session of Tennessee's One Hundred
Thirteenth General Assembly proposed that enrollment decisions be guided by considerations
other than a Tennessee resident's specific residential address, these bills have not been enacted
into law. When viewed through a broad lens, county boards of education thus still generally retain
wide discretion regarding the enrollment of students outside their jurisdictions. That basic
principle from the 2006 opinion persists.

That said, a school system's discretion is not absolute. Over the past two decades the
General Assembly has added provisions to the Tennessee Code constraining the ability of school
systems to decline the enrollment of students in certain circumstances.

"Homeless children and youths"
Start with one of the statutory provisions referenced within a footnote in the 2006
opinion, § 49-6-3102(b). The month before this Office issued the 2006 opinion, the General
Assembly amended § 49-6-3102(b) to note that local school boards' enrollment decisions are
constrained by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act ("McKinney-Vento"). That
amendment provides that while "the authority of each and every local school board in the matter
of enrollment of pupils within its local school system shall be full and complete and its decision
as to the enrollment of any pupil in any such school shall be final," Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-
3102(b), that discretion yields to exceptions "provided in . . . the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.)." Id.

Under certain circumstances, McKinney-Vento prevents a county school system from
declining to enroll a student and from ceasing the provision of services to a student. And these
circumstances could include instances where a student is living within a municipality where
another public school system operates. "Homeless children and youths" who benefit from
McKinney-Vento's provisions are "individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime
residence." 42 U.S.C. § 11434a. They include, among others, "children and youths who are
sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar
reason." Id. Notably, McKinney-Vento "presumes that keeping the child in their school of origin
. . . . is in the child's best interests." Martin v. Piserchia, No. 23-21669, 2024 WL 3812071, at
*10 (D.N.J. Aug. 14, 2024). But even when some type of dispute arises "over eligibility, or school
selection or enrollment in a school," "the child or youth shall be immediately enrolled in the school
in which enrollment is sought, pending final resolution of the dispute, including all available
appeals." 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(E).

McKinney-Vento also addresses how transportation services should be provided to
affected students, including for those who begin living in an area served by another educational
agency but continue their education in the school of origin. For that subset of students, McKinney-
Vento instructs that the respective agencies "shall agree upon a method to apportion the
responsibility and costs for providing the child or youth with transportation to and from the school
of origin." 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii)(II). And if no such agreement can be reached, "the
responsibility and costs for transportation shall be shared equally." Id.

Students in Foster Care
Section 49-6-3102 also constrains local boards of education concerning students who are
in foster care. Under § 49-6-3102(c), "any student placed in the custody of the department of
children's services shall remain enrolled in the same public school the student attended prior to
entering custody." Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3102(c). This provision further directs that "[t]he
department of children's services shall decide if the student's school is in the student's best
interest." Id. "If the department . . . determines that enrollment in the public school, which the
student attended prior to entering care, is not in the student's best interest, the student shall be
enrolled in the local school system where the student is placed or where the parent resides." Id.

Children of Military Families
Certain statutory protections are also now in place for the children of military families. In
2010, Tennessee enacted the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children,
which aims to remove educational barriers imposed on children of military families because of
frequent moves and parental deployment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-12-301. In addressing situations
where a child has been placed in the care of someone who lives in a different area from that of the
custodial parent, the statute instructs as follows: "A transitioning military child, placed in the care
of a non-custodial parent or other person standing in loco parentis who lives in a jurisdiction other
than that of the custodial parent, may continue to attend the school in which he/she was enrolled
while residing with the custodial parent." Id. In 2023, the General Assembly extended the benefits
codified in § 49-12-301 "to school-aged children in the household of a member of any reserve
component of the armed forces of the United States, including members of the Tennessee army
and air national guard, who are enrolled in any of the grades kindergarten through twelve (K-12)."
Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-313.

Students Facing Situational Hardships and the Involvement of Temporary Caregivers
Situational hardships also affect where children can be enrolled. Under the Power of
Attorney for Care of a Minor Child Act, a parent may delegate "temporary care-giving authority"
regarding a child when a hardship prevents the parent from providing care. Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 34-6-302(a)(1). As relevant here, the delegated caregiver "shall have the right to enroll the minor
child in the local education agency serving the area where the caregiver resides." Tenn. Code
Ann. § 34-6-304(b) (emphasis added). Although a school system is not required to enroll a student
in every instance involving hardship, and can even require certain verification before enrollment,
in limited instances of hardship a local school system's discretion over enrollment can be
constrained.

Students Incarcerated in Detention Centers
A student's incarceration in a detention center also implicates unique issues regarding that
student's enrollment status and the responsibilities that a county school system may have to
provide educational services. The specific details related to these matters vary depending on the
specific situation, and the regulations developed pursuant to the authority in § 49-6-3023 illustrate
this. The takeaway, though, is that a student's incarceration impresses particularized duties upon
school systems to provide educational services, just as do other special circumstances where a
student's residential stability is impacted.

Transfer Students' Access to Academic and Other Opportunities
The recently enacted Access and Opportunity Act also touches on whether a county school
system could decline to continue to provide services to a student due to the "simple fact" that the
student resides in a municipality. While the Act does not require enrollment of students seeking
a transfer, it affirms the right of transfer students that are enrolled to have "equal access" to various
opportunities. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-309(a) (stating that each local education agency "shall
provide" transfer students with equal access "to all academic and arts programs, clubs, events, and
opportunities offered" if the students "enroll or re-enroll . . . in good academic standing"). So the
simple fact that a transfer student resides in a municipality would not be a sufficient basis for a
county school system to cut off access to the academic and other opportunities that are referenced
in § 49-6-309. Whether or not all these opportunities are strictly conceptualized as "services"
provided by the school system, the statute makes clear that there must be equality of access.

To recap, although county boards of education still generally retain wide discretion
regarding the enrollment of students that live outside their jurisdictions, this discretion is not
absolute. Under certain circumstances, a county school system would be required to enroll and
educate students who live in an area served by another local public school system. And in some
cases, a county school system would not be able to deny services to a student simply because the
student lived in another jurisdiction. To the extent that the 2006 opinion indicates otherwise,
particularly as it relates to the enrollment and education of students, it is withdrawn.

JONATHAN SKRMETTI
Attorney General and Reporter

J. MATTHEW RICE
Solicitor General

MATTHEW KERNODLE
Assistant Attorney General

Requested by:
The Honorable Lowell Russell
State Representative
Cordell Hull Building, Suite 634
425 Rep. John Lewis Way North
Nashville, Tennessee 37243